9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against summary dismissal of Writ Petition, Interpretation of import policy entry for high-speed ban saw, Allegation of cutting saw performance, Granting of interim relief with conditions. Analysis: The appeal in this case was directed against the summary dismissal of a Writ Petition by a learned Single Judge, citing the availability of an alternative remedy as the reason. The appellants imported a horizontal high-speed ban saw for alloy steel with cutting speed up to 120 meters per minute, claiming it fell under the Open General License (O.G.L.) Entry 94 of the Import Policy. The High Court observed that the entry covered saws with cutting speeds of 120 meters per minute or more, and the use of the word "or" should not be interpreted as "and." The Court noted that reputable manufacturers produced saws exceeding 120 meters per minute and below that speed, indicating that the entry should not exclude saws with speeds up to 120 meters per minute. The Court found the Assistant Collector's assertion regarding cutting saw performance lacking empirical evidence and emphasized the strong case presented by the petitioners. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of summary dismissal. The Court issued a rule in favor of the appellants, granting interim relief subject to conditions. The appellants were required to provide a bank guarantee and a personal bond, with specific percentages, to secure the duty difference. The interim relief was contingent on the appellants installing the machines in their factory and refraining from disposing of them. The respondents were permitted to test the machines' operational speed, with provisions for modifying the interim order based on the test results. The Court outlined procedures for the bank guarantee's cancellation or conversion into a personal bond, depending on the test outcomes. The appellants were obligated to install the machines within a specified timeframe post-clearance, and the appeal was disposed of without costs. In conclusion, the High Court granted relief to the appellants, emphasizing the need for a proper interpretation of the import policy entry and the lack of substantial evidence supporting the respondents' contentions. The Court's decision provided interim relief with stringent conditions to safeguard the duty difference, ensuring compliance with installation requirements and operational speed testing by the respondents.
|
